Talk:Canon
__TOC__ The "canon" Curses, foiled again! — Zarchne 22:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC) :*snickers* You've spent way too much time writing for peer review, haven't you? :P --mnenyver 00:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Would you be offended if I de-obfuscated the language in this article a little bit? --mnenyver 03:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC) :Absolutely not. This particular page was originally created by you, anyway; I just expanded it a bit and added section headers. The real question is whether The "canon" is worth keeping as a separate article. The "Curses, foiled again!" was produced when I realized you had created that as a redirect to this one (and I went ahead and saved what I had at that name, and then improved this one a bit). ⚙Zarchne 02:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC) ::Seems like we could merge the two. And I apologize for the duplicated work. I thought, "Oh! Good idea for an article!" and rushed ahead. --mnenyver 04:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC) :::Sometimes we think... if not alike... along parallel lines (NB: parallel lines do not meet, but that's not necessarily what I meant). When I saw you put this up my first thought was it was going to be a straightforward standard of what was canon, rather than a broader analysis. (Similar mistake on my part to the Klaus/Mad article which I thought was a mirror of the original article when I first scanned it, and commented as if that were the case.) (Want to say something about Argadi's changing how The Works is categorized here in relation to the "canon"....) ⚙Zarchne 21:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Okay, but why did you remove the section headings? ⚙Zarchne 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC) :I was trying to be brief. With the more concise version of the article, they didn't seem necessary. Do you think it reads clearly without them? --mnenyver 18:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC) The Works, Secret Blueprints, cast lists, and GURPS sourcebook "Would have been considered canon "when they were new."" Really? Interesting. Does that mean that where they are not superceded by newer canon sources, they're still valid for main namespace articles? --DryBrook 23:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC) :You mean Secret Blueprints? I think so? I forget what the argument against it would be. I don't see that there's any doubt that DuPree is a daughter of an exiled Queen of a lost city, for instance. When we had SB available here there wasn't a need to retrace her history... and since it's just a block of text, it still doesn't feel like we should. Of course, others may feel I've missed something important. They at least have the legitimacy of the Foglios again selling them, and it's not like they refer to something other than the main narrative. ⚙Zarchne 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC) GG RP powered by GURPS Kaja's stated that this will be, in effect, Secret Blueprints II. That's about as canonical as anything gets, with Phil making 'mistakes' in the art (Rosen/Rozen, missing stitches, flipping sword guards, etc.) and the fluid nature of the storytelling. Shall I find the reference, though? Corgi 01:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC) : Nevermind, I went and anyway. -- Corgi 01:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC) :: I think it's interesting that they actually have (Kaja has) been doing that, in the sense that the Secret Blueprints were basically a cast list, and that for recent volumes cast lists are available on their site. ⚙Zarchne 17:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Othar and canonicity in general I'm not sure why Much has not been made of this interview. (If there's Much, I've missed it somehow, meh.) Other than confirming that Othar's Twitter IS CANON, Phil says, very interestingly: A large part of the Girl Genius meta project is an attempt make people aware of the difference between "history" and "narrative", and how different people see the same thing in different ways. This touches on something I've seen people overlooking - this is NOT the news from Europa; this is Phil storytelling to a bunch of kids, it's a couple of professors producing history as a popular work (think Rob Roy and Braveheart and Revolution et alia), NOT as academia. There is a perspective which is lost in all the shouting. -- Corgi 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC) : Exactly. (And War and Peace, BTW.) Star Trek often seems to be "The news from the Federation" — objectively true — even to using footage from STII:WoK on the viewscreen in STIII:SfS, and that's how the term "canon" gets used in fandom. Of course, trying to predict the plot of future episodes of Star Trek is relatively rare; the original series was written as standalone episodes by independent SF authors. : There's no question that Othar's Twitter is part of the Girl Genius canon in the literary sense, the question is whether or not anything about the plot of the main narrative ("canon" in the fan sense) can be gleaned from it. I would argue against it. : ⚙Zarchne 17:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 'Use of canon': blue tones I was very hard-pressed to not only get what this was talking about, but since no examples or proper cites were given orginally, finding a 'blue tone' frame which seemed to fit the description - I'm not certain of it, however. Need more samples, please. -- Corgi 08:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Moving 'Limitations of canon' to Mad? Unless there are arguments posted here as to why it does not belong on the Mad page, I will move it next weekend. Since it is rife with opinion, it's even a little dicey for there IMO /irony, but we'll see how it plays. -- Corgi 04:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC) : There have been no comments and no edits. As it stands, I see that it is far more suited to Mad-ness than as part of a conventional article. Due to distractions, it even got a few extra days, but now it has been moved. -- Corgi 08:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC) :: Fine, thanks. ⚙Zarchne 17:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Department of History *Department of Mostly True History *Department of Almost True History *Department of Almost Certainly True History So, I spent a couple of minutes today trying to correct all the mentions of our favorite department at TPU so that they would all agree. Ah, irony! --DryBrook 19:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC) :Aaactually, the name for this wiki was made up by Corgi, iirc. It didn't come from the books. In the books it was the other two versions. How's that for irony? :D — m (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC) : Made up by the Foglios, used in the cast list. Argadi 23:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::Thanks for the link. While I'm guilty as often as anybody of "correcting" articles with no better basis than my own humble opinion, I actually had a semi-authoritative source this time. What are the odds? :-) Of course, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the older volumes variously state the place's name as "the Carsun Vonmhekhann Department of Victorious History," "the Castle Wulfenbach Press Office," or "Minitrue". --DryBrook 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :: No, no, unless Corgi demurs or a reference prior to volume IX can be found, I'm pretty sure this was made up by Corgi months before the current cast list was published. Maybe I just want to believe it's a shout-out, but the several months' difference in favor is provable. We also have a date for when Kaja discovered (with delight) the wiki (when was that?) and I bet even that was after the name change. ⚙Zarchne 17:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC) ::: Well, it's also in the volume seven cast, the volume eight cast, and the Girl Genius Complete List of Absolutely Everybody!. (I have a tool watching that page, and the text hasn't changed in a long time.) Argadi 19:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC) :::: It's not my fault, honest! -- Corgi 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)